If your checkpoints and db.have / db.rev are fairly small, it doesn't
matter. You are completely right.
If, however, you have more than a small number of files in the repository,
it is helpful to pay attention to "small tasks that can waste a lot of
server time".
Having a wide-open workspace and doing a lot of small tasks that don't pay
attention to how they invoke the server, is a terrific way to waste a lot of
server time, in a waste that blocks everyone else out while it's wasting
that time."
- Jeff Bowles
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:12 AM, <todd.benham at kodak.com> wrote:
> Ok, I need to express the other side of this argument.
>> I don't get it -- society seems need to be so "secure" and "protected"
> these days. Why make life difficult? Are you really gaining anything?
> Give the user permissions to the areas they might or probably need at a
> relatively high level in the depots and then you are done (change
> permissions as needed). They can use a tiny scope or a large scope in
> their clients as they see fit. How many times have you had to stop what
> you are doing because you get a "not in client" message from Perforce.
> For scripts and tools and the like, I understand this completely. But
> the focus seems to be on how to make sure users are controlled and
> limited (which usually means low productivity and a lot of overhead for
> setup). Sure you can start "beginners" out with narrow clients but I
> don't see that many or certainly not all groups would need to write
> triggers and enforcements to restrict things. Why discourage small
> client if someone has a use for it? Or why make some jump through hoops
> to have a large client. The examples given so far seem contrived. This
> just seems like a waste of time to me for the vast majority of
> developers. If you have a real need for this kind of thing, certainly go
> ahead an do it.
>> Todd
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com> [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of
>ANH at etiglobal.net> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:51 AM
> To: 'perforce-user at perforce.com'
> Subject: Re: [p4] Performance impact of "large" clients
>>> I totally agree.
>> The ignored best practice, and risk of making errors, unintended
> submits, is the biggest problem.
>> We do have a tool that helps our users create their clients, and that
> tool create clients per branch. So, if a product has main, some devel
> branches and some release branches, the client generated by our tool is
> only for e.g. the main branch of that product.
>> And ~97% of our users use these clients as they are supposed to do.
>> Our challenge is the last few users, which are competent enough to
> figure out how they alter the generated clients (or create new ones by
> hand), but apparently not competent enough to understand the possible
> pitfalls of using the large scoped clients spanning several branches.
>> We have tried the educational way.
>> And what I wanted from this thread was to gain some technical arguments
> that might convince them that they are actually disturbing the other
> developers by locking the database. Besides running the risk of
> submitting/changing files unintended as Ines examples showed.
>> "Luckily" some of the worst of our users are database developers, and
> the argument with database locking might actually be something they can
> understand. :-) Thanks to Jeff for that explanation.
>> Thank you all for your replies. I will head back to those developers
> trying to convince them why clients spanning the entire depot are BAD.
>> For the record, I think we might combine our educational effort with
> some form-out, form-in triggers on client.
>> Especially a form-out trigger that changes default clients to span over
> //depot/sandbox/main/... instead of //depot/...
>> Not quite sure yet if we create a form-in trigger, the disallows these
> clients, or if we just react upon it if someone creates a client we
> don't like.
>> Once again, thanks for the replies. I good first experience with the p4
> mail lists. :-)
>> Best regards
> /Anders
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com> [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of Ines Heinz
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:47 PM
> To: 'perforce-user at perforce.com'
> Cc: 'perforce-user at perforce.com'
> Subject: Re: [p4] Performance impact of "large" clients
>> When we have allowed the code developers to have
> clients that contain multiple branches, they
> have not only done what Steve stated, but they
> also have mistakenly submitted changes for work
> that had not been tested and reviewed. Yes, you
> can put in triggers to help limit the pain, but
> going for the simpler solution and having a
> client per branch is far safer and easier.
>> ===========================Here is the
> scenario============================
> I go into winedev and p4 edit the wine.atd file
> because my wine label is the up and coming one --
> with the really witty comments about nuttiness and hints of berry.
>> Then someone realizes that the wine label in
> 2009kegs has a misspelling of the word blackberry,
> so I go and do a quick edit of that, get my edit
> reviewed and submit. All well and good with
> separate clients, but with a wide-open client, I
> accidentally submit all my opened files -- which
> submits my witty comments (some of which had not
> been spell-checked) into the winedev
> branch without the appropriate review.
>> =====================wide open
> client=====================================
> Client Root: /home/ines/perforce
> Client View:
> //depot/winedev/...
> //ines_perforce_workspace_for_updating_docsn/winedev/...
> //depot/2009kegs/...
> //ines_perforce_workspace_for_updating_docs/2009kegs/...
>> cd /home/ines/perforce/winedev
> p4 edit wine.atd
> cd /home/ines/perforce/2009kegs
> p4 edit wine.atd
> p4 submit -d "quick edit to fix typo in
> blackberry" #oops -- winedev/wine.atd is submitted!
>> =====================separate
> clients=====================================
> Client Root: /home/ines/perforce/winedev
> Client View:
> //depot/winedev/... //ines_perforce_workspace_for_updating_docs_dev/...
> Client Root: /home/ines/perforce/2009kegs
> Client View:
> //depot/2009kegs/...
> //ines_perforce_workspace_for_updating_docs_2009/...
>> cd /home/ines/perforce/winedev
> p4 edit wine.atd
> cd /home/ines/perforce/2009kegs
> p4 edit wine.atd
> p4 submit -d "quick edit to fix typo in
> blackberry" #winedev/wine.atd is not submitted!
>>> At 07:16 AM 8/6/2009, Stephen Vance wrote:
> >Large subsets for view resolution which
> >increases database lock time, memory requirements, and processor
> requirements.
> >Large have tables increase your database sizes.
> >Have tables have a high churn rate increasing
> >database fragmentation and slowing down performance.
> >P4V and P4Win don't fstat all files on opening,
> >but they do fstat all files, changes, jobs, etc.
> >that are displayed and in scope. Larger clients
> >increase the scope, although not necessarily
> >more than "Entire Depot View" would.
> >
> >I strongly discourage catch-all clients. It
> >leaves opportunities for several mistakes and
> >best practice violations. It allows changelists
> >to span branches which violates the principle of
> >a changelist being a single logical change to a
> >codeline. It allows for sloppy or mistakenly
> >targeted integrations. Those are just two of the issues.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >Anders Kjærgaard Hansen wrote:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>We are currently doing some housekeeping and
> >>cleanup in our Perforce user database, and old unused clients.
> >>
> >>We came to discuss what impact large clients
> >>have on both the perforce server, but also our storage.
> >>
> >>We have several users who was clients with views as //depot/...
> >>//client/...
> >>
> >>What are the impacts of these "global" clients?
> >>
> >>Do p4, p4v, p4win e.g. fstat all files in a
> >>client each time you open it in the application?
> >>
> >>We are especially interested in hearing
> >>opinions on whether we should allow these clients or not.
> >>
> >>We have tools supporting creation and use of correct product scoped
> >>clients.
> >>
> >>I hope some of you have some valuable input
> >>
> >>Sorry if I'm reposting this, my first mail didn't show up so I am
> >>retrying.
> >>
> >>Best regards
> >>/Anders
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com> >>http://*maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Stephen Vance
> >www.*vance.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com> >http://*maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user> >
>> ======================================
> Aura Ines Heinz
> WCI LC Liaison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> Phone: (925) 423-7900
> Fax: (925)423-5209
> B132N R1250
> ======================================
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com>http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user>> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com>http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user>> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com>http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user>